Archive for the ‘
Liquid calories ’ Category

As a portion-size advocate, I was glad to hear about Starbucks plan to unveil the “mini” 10 oz. Frappuccino sugar-sweetened coffee drink, two ounces smaller than the “Tall” (also the smallest size sold by the coffee chain).

The new “mini” size would be considered a “regular” size by the 1970s standards, a time before the era of supersize portions and oversize people. But in today’s food environment of Venti, Trenta, and Big Gulp size drinks, it seems like progress for the food industry.

Americans rarely want less of anything. We are a nation attracted to bargains and deals, and that certainly includes big portions of foods and drinks. And the food industry has been wonderful at selling us cheap food in mega sizes.

Just a few years ago, back in 2011, Starbucks introduced the “trenta” size iced coffee, a 30+ oz. size, still available today.

Why the introduction of a “mini” size now?

Starbucks said it was responding to customer requests for the smaller Frappuccino size. According to Business Cheat Sheet, “Katie Seawell, senior vice president of category brand management at Starbucks, told the AP the mini Frappuccino helped lift overall store sales in the regions where it was tested last year… Seawell added it attracted new customers and got existing customers to come back more frequently.”

Are consumers interested in health or are they hoping that a smaller size would cost them less? It looks like the former. According to the Associated Press (AP), the “mini” size will only cost 20-30 cents less than the Tall size.

But the smaller size will contain fewer calories than larger sizes, and therefore, will be good for the waistline.

According to AP, “For the regular coffee with no whipped cream, Starbucks says it’ll have 120 calories and 24 grams of sugar. That’s compared with 180 calories and 36 grams of sugar for a small (tall) and 240 calories and 50 grams of sugar for a medium (grande). A large (venti) Frappuccino has 350 calories and 69 grams of sugar.”

Seems like progress. I hope this trend continues.

The soda industry has aggressively responded to anti-soda activists (including me) by selling smaller 7.5 oz. cans of sodas. Smaller sodas are lower in sugar than the larger sizes, better for health, and certainly selling points for parents. (Never mind that the 7.5 oz can costs more than the 12 oz. can, and that kids should be drinking water instead of soda.)

It is my hope moving forward, that as a food manufacturer introduces a new smaller size, it gets rid of the largest size. That would be the best way to reshape societal norms about how much food and drink constitutes a reasonable portion.

Mike Bloomberg, former mayor of New York City, tried this by attempting to cap the size of sugary drinks sold in chain eating establishments to 16 oz. But his attempt failed. (Not surprisingly, the soda industry sued the city and court system called the portion cap an overreach of power.)

In my opinion piece for the NY Daily News, I supported Bloomberg’s efforts.

As I wrote,“Bloomberg is not banning the sale of soda. Nor is he telling consumers that they can’t drink soda. Rather, he is calling attention to how much is a reasonable amount to drink at a time. Sixteen ounces is certainly more than reasonable — a full pint of sugar water. Instead of viewing this as a ban, let’s see it as an attempt to reset the norm for how much soda truly constitutes an appropriate portion.

And while one policy alone will not solve the problem, encouraging New Yorkers to watch what they consume is a much-needed step toward reversing the obesity epidemic. It is time to return to the more reasonable sizes of the past, when obesity rates were lower.”

Perhaps the former mayor was ahead of his time. Maybe now. It’s not too late.

Let us remember, when it comes to portion sizes and attempts to lose weight, size does matter.

Kudos to Starbucks. And I am hoping that the coffee chain considers dropping its large venti size Frappuccino in the not so distant future.

New York City became the first city to almost make supersize soda cups a thing of the past. But an appeals court issued a ruling on Tuesday that that the city’s health department exceeded its legal authority by trying to place a size limit on sugary beverages served in fast food restaurants and other eating establishments.

The proposed portion size cap was set to restrict the sale of sodas and other sugary drinks that are larger than 16 ounces in food establishments, including fast-food chains, restaurants, movie theaters, sports arenas, delis, and street carts. It would have included the now-typical 20-ounce soda bottle from the corner deli and most oversized fountain drinks available in fast-food establishments and movie theaters.

The beverage industry called the measure unfair and ineffective.

The city has promised an appeal. Indeed, as the city points out in the headlines of its press release: Obesity Kills More Than 5,000 New Yorkers Annually; Sugary Beverages are Key Driver of the Obesity Epidemic.

Since New York City’s ground-breaking limit on the portion size of sugary beverages was prevented from going into effect on March 12th, more than 2,000 New Yorkers have died from the effects of diabetes. Also during that time, the American Medical Association determined that obesity is a disease and the New England Journal of Medicine released a study showing the deadly, and irreversible, health impacts of obesity and Type 2 diabetes — both of which are disproportionately linked to sugary drink consumption. Today’s decision is a temporary setback, and we plan to appeal this decision as we continue the fight against the obesity epidemic.

I hope the city wins its appeal.

As a nutritionist and health activist, here are five reasons I support the mayor and city’s health department.

1. Sugar-sweetened beverages provide nothing but empty calories. Soda offers no nutrients and no health benefits. No one needs to drink more than a pint size of sugar water at one sitting.

2. The larger the cup, the more calories (and sugar) a drink contains. For example, while a small soda (16 ounces) at KFC contains 180 calories, the Mega Jug (64 ounces) contains nearly 800 calories — more than one-third of an entire day’s recommended calories for some people. It is no surprise that obesity and other diseases including diabetes have been linked with the consumption of soft drinks

3. While a 16-ounce soda was once considered large, today it is called small. It would be great if we can go back to more normal size cups. As I previously wrote, the portion sizes of soft drinks and other foods have grown considerably over time and so have our waistlines. The sizes of soft drinks have morphed into jugs and half-gallon containers large enough for a family of eight.

4. The portion size restriction is not a “ban” as many headlines call it. The city is not banning soda or telling consumers that they cannot drink soda. Rather, the portion size cap is calling attention to how much is considered a reasonable portion at one time.

5. And, finally, the 16 ounce size restriction is quite a reasonable size: It is A PINT size and double a standard Food and Drug Administration (FDA) serving size.

The New York City portion cap on sugar-sweetened drinks was back in court earlier this week. I attended the appeals hearing held at the state appellate court. The NYC health department argued against the ruling by Judge Milton Tingling that blocked the cap on sugary drinks larger than 16 ounces from being sold in food establishments including fast food establishments, delis, and other locations which get a letter grade. As reported in theNew York Times, the lawyer for the city was met with skepticism from the justices of the First Department of the Appellate Division. It is unclear when a ruling will be issued.

As I previously blogged on The Huffington Post and the NY Daily News, I support the portion-size cap on sugary beverages. In a nutshell, portion size matters and can help in the fight against obesity. As I illustrated in my book The Portion Teller Plan, portion sizes of sodas have increased considerably over the years. Large portions may contribute to obesity because they contain more calories than small portions. While a small soda (16 ounces) at KFC contains 180 calories, the Mega Jug (64 ounces) contains nearly 800 calories. Larger portions also encourage us to consume more and to underestimate our intake. Soda, in particular, offers up no positive health benefits and is pure sugar.

Now, a new study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition found that soda size limits may help in the fight against obesity. The study found that limiting the sale of oversized sodas and other sugar-sweetened beverages could affect 7.5 percent of Americans daily, have the greatest impact on overweight individuals, and would not discriminate against the poor.

The study found that about 60 percent of Americans consumed sugary drinks daily, but only 7.5 percent of them purchased “super-size” sugary drinks from an eatery on a given day. The rates, however, were somewhat higher for certain groups: 13.6 percent of overweight teens, 12.6 percent of overweight young adults aged 20 to 44 and 8.6 percent of overweight people in general. The investigators also found that low-income and high-income people were equally likely to buy large sugary drinks from restaurants, which challenges the criticism that a ban on the sale of these drinks at eateries discriminates against the poor.

I certainly do hope that the court considers this study when issuing a ruling. Obesity and diabetes are major public health problems in the city of New York as well as in other parts of the U.S., and limiting the sizes of sugar-sweetened drinks is certainly worth trying.

In the meantime, the NYC department of health launched a new ad campaign urging New Yorkers to pay attention to the high sugar content in energy drinks, sports drinks, sweetened teas, and fruit-flavored drinks. While these drinks sound “healthy,” many have more sugar than soda. A 20-ounce lemonade, for example, contains 260 calories and 67 grams of sugar. Sugar-sweetened drinks have been associated with weight gain and and an increased risk of Type 2 diabetes and heart disease.

As the weather gets warmer and while we wait for a ruling from the appellate court, I urge us all to drink more water and pay attention to the sizes of our sugary beverages.

It has been a busy week in New York City surrounding discussions of Mayor Bloomberg’s portion-size restriction for sodas. Below is my blog post for Huffington Post on the topic. You can read it HERE.

I was pleased to participate in Mayor Bloomberg’s press event yesterday at Lucky’s Café on East 34th Street along with other public health activists. The mayor vowed that the city will appeal the ruling overturning the portion-size restriction for sugar-sweetened beverages that was set to go into effect. He also eloquently spoke about the health implications of consuming large sugary beverages for New Yorkers. The mayor mentioned that obesity is killing more than 5,000 New Yorkers annually and 100,000 people nationwide. Indeed, large portions of sugar-sweetened beverages are contributing to our obesity epidemic.

The proposed portion size cap was set to restrict the sale of sodas and other sugary drinks that are larger than 16 ounces in food establishments, including fast-food chains, restaurants, movie theaters, sports arenas, delis, and street carts. It would include the now-typical 20-ounce soda bottle from the corner deli and most oversized fountain drinks available in fast-food establishments and movie theaters. It would even include many “small” sodas served at such eateries.

The press release from Mayor Bloomberg’s office cites new research from the city showing a strong connection between the consumption of sugary beverages and obesity.

The release states that:

… neighborhoods with higher rates of consumption of sugary drinks tended to have higher obesity rates. Nine of the top 10 neighborhoods with the highest obesity rates city-wide were also the highest in sugary drink consumption. At the other end, the three least obese neighborhoods were also the lowest in sugary drink consumption.

From a nutritionist’s point of view, this makes perfect sense. Sugar-sweetened beverages are purely liquid calories, provide no nutrients, no health benefits, and contribute unnecessary calories to our diets. And, as I found in my research, portion sizes of soft drinks and other foods have grown considerably over time and so have our waistlines. The sizes of soft drinks have morphed into jugs and half-gallon containers large enough for a family of eight. In the 1950s, a Burger King “small” soda was 12 ounces and the “large” was 16 ounces. Today, its “small” is 20 ounces. In 1916, a Coca-Cola bottle was 6.5 ounces, and in the 1950s, a Coca-Cola ad advertised the 16-ounce size to be shared among 3 people. Today, many people complain that 16 ounces is too small. Indeed, our perception has shifted.

… the mayor of New York City is not banning the sale of soda. Nor is he telling consumers that they can’t drink soda. Rather, he is calling attention to how much should be considered a reasonable amount to drink at a time. And 16 ounces is certainly more than a reasonable — that is a pint-size worth of sugar water. I do not see the proposal as a ban, but rather as an attempt to reset the norm for how much drink constitutes an appropriate portion. This is a much needed proposal in an era of oversized portions.

“I am in support of the portion-size restriction on sugar-sweetened beverages,” said Lisa Young, Adjunct Professor in the Department of Nutrition, Food Studies and Public Health at New York University. “Large portion sizes of sugar sweetened beverages are a major contributor to the obesity epidemic. Capping the size of sugar-sweetened beverages is an excellent way to fight obesity. Large portions of soda contain many calories and absolutely no nutrients. No one should be drinking a 64 ounce (half gallon) of soda. A 16-ounce soda (a pint size) is certainly large enough for one person.”

But consumers will only buy small portions if the price is right or if the large sizes disappear. The price is rarely right for small portions, however. Manufacturers rarely charge half price for a half portion, as it has to cover its costs. And the cost of food is cheaper than most other costs such as rent, labor, and supplies.

As I wrote in an opinion piece for the New York Daily News back in September after the proposal was approved by the Board of Health:

Large portions contribute to obesity because they obviously contain more calories than small portions: A small soda (16 ounces) at KFC contains 180 calories, while the Mega Jug (64 ounces) contains nearly 800 calories — and is more than one-third of an entire day’s recommended calories for some people. Bigger portions also encourage us to consume more and to thus underestimate how much we are really eating and drinking. And it is the destitute who are most frequently the victims of the ills that come with fast-food consumption.

Given the enormous health implications of obesity in New York and elsewhere, capping the portion sizes of liquid calories devoid of nutrients is a terrific place to start.
The city did indeed file an appeal of Judge Tingling’s ruling. It is unclear how long it will take before a decision is reached. While I do hope that the decision is made in favor of the city, regardless of the outcome, Mayor Bloomberg and the city accomplished a great deal. The proposal to limit supersize sugary beverages set the stage for a national discussion on the contribution of our food environment — in particular, large portions of sugary beverages — to the obesity epidemic. And, we can do something about it!

I do hope that while we are waiting, restaurants and other eating establishments follow Lucky Café’s lead and voluntarily offer smaller sodas. We as consumers should also pay closer attention to the sizes of our food portions. We should think twice before buying the larger size, even if we get twice as much for just an extra quarter. And, in the end, we must remember that portion size matters.

Below is a blog post just published for Huffington Post on Mayor Bloomberg’s proposal on sugary beverages. Here is the link.

Several weeks ago, Mayor Bloomberg announced a plan to restrict the sale of sugary drinks larger than 16 ounces at restaurants, movie theaters, and food carts in an effort to help combat the obesity epidemic in New York City. The mayor’s Task Force on Obesity states that “Americans consume 200-300 more calories daily than 30 years ago, with the largest single increase due to sugary drinks.”

As both a researcher tracking the sizes of food portions (soda included — I have many oversized soda cups in my collection) and as a nutritionist counseling overweight patients, I continue to stay abreast of the latest developments in the proposed restriction on the sale of sodas and other sugar-sweetened beverages over 16 ounces.

Many of the nation’s physicians treating obesity-related illnesses also support the mayor’s proposal, citing that 46 percent of the nation’s intake of added sugars comes from beverages. The American Medical Association (AMA) also recently endorsed taxing sugar-sweetened beverages to a penny per ounce.

As I previously wrote for The Huffington Post, I support Mayor Bloomberg’s proposal for several reasons. Sugar-sweetened beverages are purely liquid calories and provide no nutrients, portion sizes of such foods have increased considerably over the last 50 years, and larger portions contain more calories than smaller portions and encourage overeating. I see it as a win-win situation.

The mayor of New York City is not banning the sale of soda. Nor is he telling consumers that they can’t drink soda. Rather, he is calling attention to how much should be considered a reasonable amount to drink at a time. And 16 ounces is certainly more than a reasonable — that is a pint-size worth of sugar water. I do not see the proposal as a ban, but rather as an attempt to reset the norm for how much drink constitutes an appropriate portion. This is a much needed proposal in an era of oversized portions.

Others, however, disagree. Some argue that Mayor Bloomberg’s proposal violates personal freedom and that the city should not dictate what size drinks people buy. The soda industry complained that soda is being singled out, and it has a website devoted to its case: www.letsclearitup.org.

At issue is just how large soda sizes have gotten. In the 1950s, McDonald’s offered just one size, 7 ounces, and Burger King offered a 12-ounce small and a 16-ounce large.

The following chart illustrates just how out of control portion sizes — and calories — of soft drinks have gotten in fast food establishments.

Looking at the above chart, it is clear that most sizes currently sold will not be marketed if Mayor Bloomberg gets his way. And, I will argue, for good reason. They contain mega calories. For example, the small size soda (and only size allowed according to the proposal) at KFC contains 180 calories, while the 64-ounce mega jug contains nearly 800 calories.

New Yorkers may or may not be able to purchase jumbo sodas next spring, but the mayor’s proposal has put supersized beverages on the line and is getting a dialogue going about portion size, soda consumption, and obesity. That, in and of itself, is progress. I commend Mayor Bloomberg for raising our awareness to the problem with oversized beverages. I am proud to be a New Yorker and look forward to the day when I will no longer be able to collect oversized cups.

A month ago, the NYC Department of Health launched a new campaign on portion sizes–Cut Your Portions. Cut Your Risk–featuring ads on subways encouraging New Yorkers to trim their portions to reduce their risk of health problems. As I previously wrote , the city’s health department is very proactive in fighting obesity and other public health issues, and this campaign is urging New Yorkers to be more aware of portion sizes when deciding what to eat or drink. The campaign makes perfect sense at a time when food portions have increased and so have rates of obesity.

Not surprisingly, the campaign drew criticism from food industry groups selling the very foods the city’s health department is suggesting we limit. As reported in Crains, the American Beverage Association, called the ads “scare tactics.” They further indicated that they are offering “real solutions” including smaller portioned containers and calorie labels on the front of the package.

While several smaller sized containers have indeed been introduced, soft drinks marketed for individual consumption are still much too big. For example, 7-Eleven’s“Double Gulp” soda is 64-ounces, contains nearly 800 calories and 50 teaspoons of sugar, if you don’t add too much ice. While this soda is marketed for one person, it is really sized to be shared among eight people. Further, while the standard Coca-Cola bottle found in vending machines was once 6.5-ounces, today it is 20-ounces.

The Center for Consumer Freedom also took offense to the campaign. They wrote “By now you’ve probably heard of the latest round of food-fear ads from the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. … the City now implies that larger sodas and cheeseburgers are causing amputations, and people to ride obesity scooters.” They further indicate that “The ads ignore decades of research into the causes of obesity, choosing instead to confuse correlation with causation. In that spirit, we tried our hand at irrationally demonizing products with the horror of upward-sloping lines.”

As reported in the New York Times, the city’s health department explained its approach with the following statement: “When science tells us that smoking does not cause lung cancer or that obesity is not driving an epidemic of Type 2 diabetes, we will stop depicting those facts in ads. Until then we are going to accurately convey the facts in our advertising — advertising that has helped to successfully reduce smoking in New York City to a historic low of 14 percent, saving thousands of lives.”

Recently, in the Huffington Post, Sandra Mullin and Nandita Murukutla from the World Lung Foundation wrote a compelling article “Hard Hitting Messages That Work: NYC’s Public Health Education Campaign” in response to the recent series of stories in the New York Timesquestioning the city’s efforts to combat obesity with a series of hard hitting messages. Their conclusion: “New York City’s efforts are grounded in rigorous message testing and a logical premise that years of deceitful marketing cannot be undone with feel-good messaging. To stem obesity and the tobacco epidemic, health departments need to build on what’s worked whether it is palatable or not. Good medicine is often hard to swallow.”

While the ads may make you look twice and it may not be pleasant to view (i.e. an amputee in a wheelchair), they do make one take notice of potential health implications of obesity and overeating.

The NYC health department has unveiled other such public health campaigns , and it appears that they may be working. Smoking has declined in New York City and so have rates of childhood obesity in NYC. I applaud the health department for its efforts in fighting to improve the public health of New Yorkers and hope other health departments around the country follow New York’s lead.

Starbucks recently announced the introduction of a new larger size beverage to appear in US coffee shops nationwide in May: the 31-oz Trenta. It will be available for iced beverages—iced coffees, teas, and lemonade. Do we really need a quart size beverage for one person?! It is the company’s largest drink size to date and will cost only 50 cents more than the 24-oz Venti-size iced drinks. Starbucks says it is responding to consumer demand for larger cold beverages. Are we really requesting bigger sizes??

We know that consuming liquid calories can lead to weight gain. So many people forget to count the calories they drink and some large-size drinks contain mega calories–more than 500 calories. And that is without the pastry.

Here is my advice: order a “Tall” instead. Yes—only America, is “Tall” the “Small”, but nonetheless, it is beats the Grande, Venti, or Trenta. And try for a non-fat skim latte or cappuccino—at least you’ll get calcium from the milk.